Has the show been successful?

Potential Criteria for Success
Although, HOW indeed should one critique an exhibition of social practice, which is an organic and constantly changing process?! It's hard, but: Must. Do. It.

Documentation and Use of Physical Space
Did the show successfully document each social practice project in the form works in a gallery show? Does the way in which the work was exhibited clearly reflect to the show's audience, its processes, the people involved in the project, the resources used, the current outcome of each project?

In a sense, it's difficult to ask these questions because it would require a thorough examination of all the different works and how they're exhibited, and then how they're exhibited in relation to one another, and how the symposium and publications for A Lived Practice supplement the show's ability to document social practice projects.

One could say it has failed to accurately represent some projects, while it has succeeded in others. The un-activated space devoted to Tiravanija's and Peterman's untitled group lunch piece remains a mystery, even to those who have access to photo documentation or written accounts of the interactive piece. On the other hand, the thorough and well-curated set-up of the Rakowitz piece leaves very little to be desired, when one is spoiled with video documentation, hand-written annotations on display cases of important artifacts, and even a tank of fish. All our senses are invited to be engaged. All that's left is our decision to accept that invitation and put pieces of this social practice narrative together.

Then again, is it a strategic move on the part of the curators to have the exhibition space filled with areas of stimulation and dense narrative (as with Rakowitz's piece, or Puett's piece), while also punctured by areas pregnant with potential (as with Tiravanija's piece)? The use of benches in the space for the Tiravanija piece suggests a resting point in the show, a place for reflection and imagination, perhaps?

One major disappointment in terms of the use of physical space in the show is Inigo Manglano-Ovalle's Seven Thousand Cords. Although in the description, it is stated, "This project invites contemplation of the banking/harvesting carbon cycle that we continually engage as organic beings, but maybe not enough as environmentally conscious citizens," the act of creating this art work seems to contradict the intention of the artist. The act of actually cutting down oak trees, meticulously treating them, and rendering them unusable for utilitarian contexts once the show is over, allow us to contemplate our insufficient efforts to conserve the environment. But why the extravagance in the set-up? Should there be additional documentation to accompany the piece?

Another space that was only sometimes activated was the print shop by Temporary Services. Visiting it, we understand that they have collaborators, that they'll continue to work there throughout the exhibition, and we can supposedly buy their older publications (but where do put the money? hmm...). However, it is often left unattended, and the promise of a collaborative and engaging process just isn't enough. Especially when we don't seem to be the target audience (then who is?)--a conundrum we're also faced with in Tiravanija's piece. We're left with the question of what and for whom? and it is unsatisfactory.

Also, one might say there is something crucially missing in the show. Where are the people that may have collaborated or contributed to the creation of this thing called social practice? Where is Grant Kester, for example? Hiding in one of those Social Practice publications?

One student and social practice project participant's view on documentation and collaboration:


 * For example the Addams/ Dewey gymnasium curated by Pablo Helguera. In it’s concept I can support the historical context with relation to Jane Addams and John Dewey as crucial Chicago figures during the turn of the century. The space itself is a representation of a gym environment on a human scale. Even in it’s execution there was no detail spared and it’s fabrication is both rendered and adorned beautifully. But once again I turn back to the lack of people that require the space to be activated. If the gym can be used as a tool to engage the public with Indian Clubs and other activities of participation what happens when there isn’t anyone there to lead, or maximize the use of the gym. Although in truth Sullivan Galleries is not a museum and because of it operates under different conditions with a different type of mission and expectation then what are the ways or propositions that could max out it’s usage.


 * It must be said in full disclosure that I actively sought out an opportunity to immerse myself in coursework with Pablo Helguera along with other notable chicago figures that represent the civic sphere. This took place over the course of two summers and in doing so the gym was created. In the end voluntarily participants were asked to work as guides or gym attendants to incorporate learned ideas and techniques that would enhance the gym experience but in some sense of the proposition only but a fraction of it’s intended use has come to fruition. How does this realization compare to the cost of it’s creation. One strong factor that cannot be ignored is the very fact that it is situated firmly in an institution of higher learning that houses a gallery space that is part and parcel to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. With that said and as a direct result Sullivan Galleries is not a museum, nor is it a biennial or any such thing remotely connected to the art circuit. It has its own mission and set of challenges that complicate the ways in which visitor experience is considered and programmed. These realizations are not new. The foot track frequenting the exhibit is limited and primarily catering to the student body at SAIC. Now with that said, I must touch on an important factor and that is that in theory the gymnasium was a place for immigrants and people who were living at the margins of  society on the lower west side of Chicago who were able to access  a safe place to take part in physical activity. Maybe instead of building a gym an effort to combine or challenge a local foundation to support a sustainable project or idea could have been a small token to commemorate the contributions that both Addams/ Dewey are most recognized for. This could have been a build out, addition, preservation or programming that could have served a greater purpose than the SAIC students merely talking to themselves about terminology that is not separate from their exposure in art school.Download.jpeg

Intention, audience and impact
Who is the target audience of this show? Did the show manage to draw this target audience? The target audience would be the people related to the corresponding social issues' associations, and SAIC. Because there are ten artists working on ten totally different projects, it is not very easy for one to pin point on a certain group of targeted audience.

But in terms of its intention to lend legitimacy (a contentious term in itself!) to social practice, Proximity is aimed at a very specific audience. An audience that has the power to decide if social practice is, or isn't art, or something to be taken seriously at the very least. One can say it will certainly live up to part of its curators' intentions as stated in the press release: One can say this show was created to validate the existence of social practice and solidify its standing in contemporary art canon. Like a big finger flipped in the face of social practice detractors. Like hey, look at social practice! It now has its own legit show, in a legit prestigious institution, with four legit academic publications and its own legit symposium! Plus sponsors from all over the globe! You can't ignore us now! It's pretty clear that Proximity is succeeding, will be succeeding and will go down in history successful in this respect.
 * "[T]he program series is the largest and most comprehensive ever organized on social practice in art, a contemporary framework for artmaking whose legitimacy continues to be contested both within and outside of the art world."

But let's break this down further. It claims to be comprehensive, which is a term we can take in many different directions. FEAST had an extremely comprehensive program beyond its exhibition that spanned various locations in the city over an extended period of time, although it is admittedly not a social practice exhibition. It was about eating, oops, no radical hospitality. Another way in which we can talk about its comprehensiveness is how comprehensively did this show represent social issues? Did the show manage to represent a diversity of social issues? Did it include important social issues of our day? Sadly, the answer is no, to both. Some of the issues most glaringly absent from the show include LGBTQ issues, healthcare problems, gentrification in the city of Chicago, problems with the Chicago Public Schools system, etc. There are zines, art programs and social institutions devoted to these issues. Why have they been left out? Can we significantly "expand knowledge around Chicago's art history and place within the American story" in a show about social practice without discussing the Chicago Black Renaissance and its undeniable link to social activism, the Chicago Seven, the AACM? It's doubtful. It's a start, but it's a little too premature to say there has been a significant expansion of awareness of Chicago's art history when there is little mention of various important cultural movements in Chicago. But perhaps this is Sullivan Galleries' pinky promise to begin expanding its "reach and responsibility." It's not a stretch.
 * Kitten-toe-stretch.gif“In organizing this exhibition, I have been most driven by the objective of expanding knowledge around Chicago’s art history and place within the American story,” said Mary Jane Jacob, Executive Director of Exhibitions and Exhibition Studies and Professor at SAIC. “And this has become a key part of the mission of the Sullivan Galleries as its reach and responsibility stretches out to the city, as well as inward to the campus.”

Or what if it's a wise move to focus on two important (white) historical figures and their influence on Chicago social practice because there's no space to give a full run-down of historical context and present social issues like in the MCA's show, This Will Have Been?

Another question to ask: is this show intended for a widespread impact in Chicago? Did it manage to engage a diverse group of people? As for the diversity of people engaged in the show, it's highly unlikely that this show had an effect beyond the contemporary art world, art schools in Chicago, activists, and collaborators involved in the exhibited social practice projects. Maybe it should have been located in a space that's more easily accessible, in a neighborhood other than the loop, in a gallery that's not in a large art school?

Wait a second. Define "accessible." Accessible to whom? Because in the Art in Location course of summer 2014, Mary Jane Jacobs talked about how some have complained that Inigo's project and other site-specific projects in Culture in Action was inaccessible to people who didn't live in that neighborhood. So is it important that social practice projects are exhibited in a central area like the Loop, so that its audience is not limited to the projects' collaborators and site-specific immediate community? Does the audience always have to be either the art world/rich patrons/art critics or the community directly involved in and collaborating with the artist in the social practice project?

In this sense, are we doomed if we do and doomed if we don't? Placing the project in a neighborhood could also be considered gentrification or parachuting, and why do you want to make a show in a neighborhood where everybody is already facing these issues every day? Do we focus on awareness-raising for a segment of the population that might not otherwise be so exposed to eg. gang violence or the closing of the Chicago Public Schools?

Social Change
Is it necessary for an exhibition on social practice to achieve social change (e.g. in terms of changing policies, directing attention towards important issues, directing much-needed funding to certain social projects, etc.)? If so, did this show manage to do so? Jacob's goal seems to be about awareness-raising and 'knowledge-production', not necessarily actual social change. As to whether it's necessary for a show about social practice to achieve social change, it's hard to say. If a seed takes hold in one person, and they go home and can't stop thinking about the war veterans catching this one carp that's the national dish of Iraq, is that not social change? This, naturally, cannot be measured.

It might be successful in giving SAIC a central role in Chicago's social practice milieu, as the school is keenly focusing in on such projects this year, with the Symposium and the class Social Practice Lab in the Art Education department. Does it mean that the school is more interested in funding these kinds of projects? And is this something we want, even if it's primarily for the school to gain publicity and brownie points, cynically speaking? More importantly, DO WE LIKE THESE BROWNIE POINTS AND DO THEY TASTE DELICIOUS? From a social practice point of view, naturally.

So if Proximity raises the art audience's consciousness regarding social practice, and thus the school's (in the first place) funding for social practice projects, does it mean that we're simply corporate slaves dancing to our master's whip or using the system to our benefit? Naturally, everyone will have a different take on this, and we have yet to see whether there will be funding going to much needed projects (although, as has already been touched upon, many social issues in Chicago aren't represented in the exhibition) and whether this will be taken further.

Perhaps, for a future idea, we make a show that is demonstrating social practice in addition to showcasing it? And how about making it somewhat more inclusive, by opening up the print shop to everyone, letting us chop and take home Manglano-Ovalle's wood for our non-existent fireplace, and serving us those carps? Because if there's one thing we've learned from Feast, it's that people love to eat... I mean, people love radical hospitality. Right. Right...

Originality
Oh, wow. This is starting to sound like a beauty pageant rubric or a crafts show rubric. Each one of these criteria can be developed into a full-length dissertation about Proximity alone, and the one on originality will probably cause the most migraines. For the purposes of this discussion, let's define "originality" as: whether or not an exhibition stands out in its documentation and representation of social practice and other social practice-related projects. Let's compare Proximity to FEAST and ''Culture in Action. In terms of site, Culture in Action ''was probably most "original" because of how it physically removed the artwork from traditional art institutions. thus creating a unique viewpoint through which one can view site-specific, social practice-related projects. In terms of form, FEAST is perhaps most "original" (based on existing documentation) given the diversity of artist-audience interaction/performative forms in the show, although specifically within the frame of reference of hospitality and eating. Perhaps Proximity is most "original" in its confidence to declare itself a pivotal point in social practice history. It certainly has the prestigious exhibition, symposium, big names, and thorough academic publications to firmly ground its place in various histories: contemporary art history, activist history, history of art schools, political history, history of curatorial practices... Proximity has its flags on many moons! You go, Glen Coco!